156 MILLION DEAD CANT BE ALL THAT WRONG!

[emprworm]

France is going to ban all religious expression in schools and the workforce. This means that if a student wears an ankh to school or tatoos an angel on his arm, it is forbidden and a potential crime. A T-Shirt that says "There is a God" would be forbidden (hmmm...but makes you wonder about a t-shirt that says "There is no God".)

A student would not be allowed to say "I believe the Bible is history" in school (hmmm...makes you wonder whether an atheist could say "The bible is a bunch of fictional stories).

Chirrac says that secularism is the foundation of a good society.

But history shows that secularism in the last 100 years is responsible for more deaths than all religions combined over the last 1000 years.

156 million dead in the name of atheistic secularism!

see http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html for proof and scholarship

Looks like France is trying very hard to continue the fine trend of 20th century secularism! Way to go France!

[emprworm]

i want to point out and highlight a quote from that report that I think is very significant:

"The greatest crimes of human history have been committed, and the greatest criminals of all time have lived, in the past hundred years."

humans evolving? hardly! Secularistic societies have never existed until the 20th century. And at the onset of secularism, comes the onset of the worst crimes ever seen in the history of this planet.

[Terror]

what is it with you and France anyway huh? What did they ever do to you... You hate them because they didn't support the USA in the war against Iraq?..

some person you are...

[Anathema]

Chirrac says that secularism is the foundation of a good society

Because it is. However repressive this law maybe, secularism is the foundation of any democratic, lawful society. Even the greatest man behind the American constitution, Thomas Jefferson, was a great advocate of secularism.

Secularism isn't atheism, it's neutrality.

Plus it's kind of odd that you stay away for months only to return briefly to post your filth advocating against French and atheists.

[nemafakei]

Errors in the above:

1. Secularism and atheism are not the same, by definition.

2. I presume you're referring mostly to Big Joe, who himself was hardly devoid of religion, let alone utilisation of religious ideas. Even if he was doing it in the name of atheism, secularism is different.

3. The greatest crimes have been easier due to technology

4. I believe that there will be leniency on discreet things, such as small crosses... ah, the precise words mirrored by the beeb: ""Discreet" medallions and pendants which merely confirm a person's religious faith would be allowed"

5. The title - mostly unrelated to issue, only data anyway, and all in caps.

6. Rene, whether or not that's true, you could at least make an effort to tackle his main argument (or say you support it)

I think the main problem with this dress code idea is the fact that there is no school uniform in France. Frankly, the wearing of designer clothes, or items with large, visible labels is more likely to cause friction in a school than a small cap. It's not even as if a headscarf is religious by necessity (though granted the reverse is more or less true).

Oh, goodness. A though has occured. It may be an effort, in part, to reduce numbers of asylum seekers, or encourage them to prefer to come to other countries like Britain.

[Terror]

Yes, i know Nema... but i wasn't realy replying to this topic... more like replying to him in person.

[thomas]

There goes freedom of speech in France . . . ::)

Stupid French Government, oppression is for kids ::) (lol J/K)

[TMA_1]

empr, your statements are so general, and are so opinionated that how could anyone agree with you? All killings of that kind of mass scale come from odd political agenda's, racism, and bigotry. Athiests havent killed millions, people in power have killed millions. Dont make ideals killers, because though ideals might spark someone to kill, that someone is always to blame.

I hate it when people say "christians have killed millions", because it is an extremely crude and historically false statement. The church heirarchy might have killed thousands, but at the time the church was more of a political organization, with people at the top being athiests! honest to God athiests who didnt even believe in the church they were a party to. There have been some who truly have killed in the name of religion, but you cant blame religion for those deaths, because the person USED religion for that as a tool for evil. Ideologies are tools, and can be used, but in the end it is humanity that kills humanity.

Stop blaming athiests for the "downfall of society". The only enemy to humanity is humanity itself. Not atheistic, or theistic ideologies. Not economic or political purposes. It all boils down to seeds of evil that all humans aquire in that kind of power.

In short, by you blaming atheism, you make it okay to attack theism for it's killings.

From catholics killing and dispersing jews from parts of europe, to buddhists in the 7th century who persicuted nestorian christians in china. All interest groups attack, dont continue that evil of attacking ideologies, it only leads to more hostility and hatred.

[Egeides]

There is a generalization here, as if from the moment you were cutting off the possibility to do something, it was to diminish freedom. I do not say Chirac did right or wrong though. But I think that no one has the freedom to cut my freedom; basically, "One's freedom stops where the other's freedom starts".

Whattever what Chirac did, I think that if it cuts someone else's freedom, the question becomes different. "Freedom" of expression may go on the others' juridiction sometimes, like when:

1- Proselitzing someone that does not wish that

2- Trying to impose your beliefs to someone

3- A symbol brings some to impose on some others certain things

So the question Chirac brings is not as easy as saying "He stops someone from doing something, thus he's diminishing freedom", and I'm still waiting to get an example of the possibility of expressing atheism. Maybe, who knows, but we'll be able to say it exists when an element will show such a thing.

[NeoLogiX]

Why France need to be a rough secular nation ? :(

[Acriku]

Hmm, only the most technological and scientific age of humanity in the last century, and the only secular societies in the last century, coincidence? Heh.

"The greatest crimes of human history have been committed, and the greatest criminals of all time have lived, in the past hundred years."

Wow, could that be because we've come up with means of greater ease to kill many people? Durrr.

France is going to ban all religious expression in schools and the workforce. This means that if a student wears an ankh to school or tatoos an angel on his arm, it is forbidden and a potential crime. A T-Shirt that says "There is a God" would be forbidden (hmmm...but makes you wonder about a t-shirt that says "There is no God".)

What I'm wondering right now is whether you're overstating everything, or you're pulling it all out of your butt. Nothing seems to have changed since you left, so probably the latter.

[Wolf]

TMA; you are correct.

We cannot blame either secularism (atheism) or religion for the ills of manking. The act of blaming one party or the other is simply the avoidance of responsibility. If anything, it is FREE WILL that is responsible for ALL the deaths humanity has inflicted on itself, for ALL murders have been made through the CHOICES of the people who were the murderers. I can make a much better case for why we should have no free will or the ability to choose because we can choose to kill, RATHER than making the case that religion or atheism kill. That is just an excuse.

I do not think, however, that people will say that free will should be abolished because it is the ROOT of all human ills, for it is also the root of all human good. We value free will as our most sacrosanct right, and we will not violate it. However, we must recognize the responsibility that comes with our freedom of choice, and act accordingly. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, which includes WIDESPREAD discrimination against ANY system of human belief. Persecuting religious believers is just as dangerous -- and repetitive of our murderous past -- as is persecuting atheists, other races, or ANYONE. To BLAME a certain facet of OUR HUMANITY -- such as religion or atheism -- is to DO THE EXACT SAME THING. We, by saying that a certain belief is "the foundation of society" alienate other beleifs, and unknowingly contribute to the cycle of destructive misgiving that we have been for so long a part of. One cannot "blame" a facet of humanity for the ills of humanity as a whole. We must accept that our beliefs are different, and live with them.

Now, for Chirac. The state, of course, cannot espouse any religious position. However, by banning all religious emblems in public institutions, such as schools, he is ENCROACHING on his peoples' right to choose. A government cannot decide a religion, but it cannot say "on our grounds, you must have NO religion" -- does this not VIOLATE our free will? Do we DO HARM to others by wearing religiously founding clothing? Is this not oppressive of religious groups who work for the government, and wish to express their personal beliefs? This, naturally, makes him no better than what Bush's worst critics accuse him of being. I find this... strangely appropriate.

(sighs) We must move beyond assigning the blame for our crimes on such abstractions such as religion, or other facets of humanity. Otherwise, we will keep committing the same crimes over and over again, because these crimes are FOUNDED on the principle of persecuting facets of humanity. We must take responsibility for what we have done as a race, and work to move beyond that. Since we agree that free will is our most treasured value, we then cannot say that people should be restricted in their religion -- for that is wrong. And Chirac, as well as he might mean to be, might not be making the right choice, of his own free will.

[Caid Ivik]

I dislike this french initiative. It's against freedom of religion - hiding of hair isn't religious provocation, that's only more pure view on morale. Also, who of you do feel offended, when you see a pentagram on someone's neck? But whatever, Chirac will be the one who losses muslim votes...

[ordos45]

I dislike this french initiative. It's against freedom of religion - hiding of hair isn't religious provocation, that's only more pure view on morale. Also, who of you do feel offended, when you see a pentagram on someone's neck? But whatever, Chirac will be the one who losses muslim votes...

Yeah, that 8% of the population in France's votes. Also, if those girls are raised not to where their headscarves and they go on the Hajj to Saudi Arabia one day when they're grown...well it probably wouldn't be good.

I don't get offended by pentagrams personally...

[Edric O]

Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to your own articles, Emprworm.

The article you posted mentions that most dictators don't really give a damn about their official ideology or their economic system: All they want is to stay in power. As the perfect example, see China. Its leaders had no second thoughts about betraying everything that were supposedly standing for and switching from a planned economy to a market economy. As long as they kept their priviledged positions, it made no difference whatsoever.

The same goes for religion and atheism. A dictator doesn't care either way, although some megalomaniacs like to set themselves up as gods.

(btw, I wonder, when - if ever - will historians who consider themselves reasonably well-informed start realizing the difference between communism, socialism and stalinism? Ah well, I guess it would hurt their public image if they did that)

[ordos45]

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This would be from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which France, is a signatory.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

And there's also Article 30, but this is a bit redundant, just saying that a nation should recognize each Article.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, is there a difference, when state follows ideology of secular humanism or a communism? For me not, it's just a matter of time until it starts a pressure on other ideologies.

[Wolf]

You're right Edric, dictator's do not care, and neither do people who have such strong political agendas that they care not for the truth, but only for getting their "message" across.

[TMA_1]

my edric, you seem to think a lot of yourself if you believe you can change the minds of every historian around you. Your ideas must be correct every single time. ::)

since when do dictators only care about power? I grant that most of the time they do, but havent you ever known those rulers who really think they are doing good for humanity? look at hitler, though he was evil incarnate, he thought that killing the jews would rid humanity of a "disease", he also thought by enforcing tough eugenics codes, that humanity would evolve to a new state of being. He really had little to do with religion, and wished to cozy up to it in the early part of his reign, but later in his rule he started to dispise religion, probably because it is such a variable, and couldnt be trusted. He also knew that many people of religion would hate what he would do, and they did in many cases. Of course the relgiions close to him usually tried to stay close to him, for their own gain.

Dont make a mistake in branding all dictators as mindless powerhungry egomaniacs. They often think their goal in life is one that is almost divine in proportions. They often think that what they do is ordained by nature, or by a God that they have twisted to their own ends.

Hitler often spoke well of christianity, and other religions. Of course he missed the point.

"Those who curse you (abraham) will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed".

Hitler of coursed missed the entire point of the bible when it says that the jews are God's chosen people, and whoever tries to destroy his people are committing an act of war against God. That didnt bode well with him and well you know what happened, God got his vengance.

[Wolf]

Did you just defend Hitler?

[Atomic Mitten]

No I think he was just making a point that not all dictators want power just for their own needs,but that some believe that man needs a leader to take complete control and do things in their name,

Rather like being cruel to order to achieve an end result benefiting the majority rather than the minority.In their fanatical minds they think only they know what is best for the peasants.

[Edric O]

You're right Edric, dictator's do not care, and neither do people who have such strong political agendas that they care not for the truth, but only for getting their "message" across.

I agree. People who get too caught up in their ideology tend to lose sight of the ultimate goals of that ideology. They concentrate too much on the means and not enough on the ends, which can lead to disaster. It's good to have strong political opinions, but you must never forget that politics is a means to an end, not an end in itself. This is particulary important for us communists, since we ultimately fight for human life, human dignity and human happiness, not abstract ideology.

EdricO, is there a difference, when state follows ideology of secular humanism or a communism? For me not, it's just a matter of time until it starts a pressure on other ideologies.

It's hard to see the difference between modern ideologies when you're still stuck in the Dark Ages, Caid.

my edric, you seem to think a lot of yourself if you believe you can change the minds of every historian around you. Your ideas must be correct every single time. ::)

I am not trying to change their minds. They know perfectly well what they're talking about. I only said that they are misusing a word. Of course, words are ultimately irrelevant, and it doesn't really matter if you call it "communism" or "cantfindanameforthispoliticalideology-ism". The point is that the ideas of Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels, and Rosa Luxembourg, and to a certain extent Vladimir Lenin, etc.) and those of Joseph Stalin (and Mao Zedong, and Kim Jong-Il, etc.) are in the same relation to each other as the ideas of Jesus Christ and those of the Spanish Inquisition. The two groups claimed to represent the same thing, but in reality they were almost polar opposites.

[TMA_1]

oh okay, I cant disagree with you there. Though I wouldnt add lenin to the theorists.

[Edric O]

Lenin is a controversial figure. His ideas were good (indeed, communism as we know it today wouldn't even exist without Lenin), but his actions were not.

And not only that, but the post-revolution Lenin seems to be a completely different person from the pre-revolution one. Power can change people...

Edit: But let's not divert this topic. There is another point I'd like to make: You mentioned the fact that Hitler actually believed in nazism. That is true. Hitler was one of the few dictators who are not merely power-hungry egoists, but also completely insane.

Also, I think God would have been against the nazis no matter which particular people they decided to slaughter. God disaproves of ALL murder and genocide.

[Wolf]

Well, some might see God as a benevolent dictator. Perhaps the best political system is, of course, an all-powerful government that works totally for the best interest of all people, and knows everything there is to know, so it can accomplish this goal. If God came down to Earth, we'd probably make him The Emperor, and we'd probably be better off. But, sadly, humanity cannot handle the burden of power. It drives us nuts, which is why dictatorships always fail. Human nature, I'd say.